Originally posted by huckleberryhoundHezbollah is defending their land; last I checked it was never considered essential for a country defending its land to force all its people to move so that an invader could bomb. Could you please point out in history when this was done? Israel has decided where it wanted to bomb and it has bombed many civilian targets: airports, roads, bridges, villages, etc. etc. etc. etc.
You haven't answered my question, but i will answer yours in the hope that you respond in kind.
Too many Lebanese innocents have died.
Now you answer my question, and while you are at it answer another.
Do you believe hiding behind civilians is a correct way to carry out an armed struggle? and do you believe Hesbolla could've positioned civillians in direct line of fire on purpose?
Hezbollah attacked an Israeli military unit inside what lebanon considers Lebanese territory. The Israeli military would have been justified in attacking some Hezbollah military targets IF Israel doesn't want to negotiate (it obviously doesn't). But a full scale invasion is beyond the plae and a 1000 dead and counting is a war crime.
Originally posted by ivanhoeI admit no such thing. If the UN Security Council wanted to use force to implement SC 1559 it was up to them to say so in a resolution. Israel cannot do so on its own.
At least you are admitting that Hezbollah and their supporters Syria and Iran were not willing to implement UNSC resolution 1559, but moreover you are admitting now that militairy force was/is necessary to do this.
I know marauder, you claim, and in doing this you are following the Syrian stance, that 1559 is not legal ......
How come that you const ...[text shortened]... and Hezbollah ?
Please, don't say it is because they have International Law on their side.
Originally posted by no1marauderThat's what they did in the first days.
The Israeli military would have been justified in attacking some Hezbollah military targets....
So Hezbollah starts firing rockets (at civilians), what do you suggest next?
Oh, as long as your checking on things, look into strategic bombing (targets).
...................................................................................................
Arab militants strike across the border from southern Lebanon, provoking a massive Israeli response, with thousands of soldiers pouring into Lebanese territory and airstrikes pounding enemy positions.
The Israeli prime minister says the only objectives of the invasion are to "root out the evil weed" of terrorism. Israel will protect itself by pushing militants beyond the Litani River and establishing a buffer zone along the border. The Israeli incursion is also described as "limited." And though Israel says its strikes are carefully targeted against militants, at least 100,000 Lebanese civilians flee their homes and hundreds die.
That was 1978.
1 edit
Originally posted by xsBS. The Israelis bombed the Beirut airport on the first day. Please stop twisting the facts; dozens of Lebanese civilians had been killed before Hezbollah fired a single rocket.
That's what they did in the first days.
So Hezbollah starts firing rockets (at civilians), what do you suggest next?
Oh, as long as your checking on things, look into strategic bombing (targets).
...................................................................................................
Arab militants strike across the border from southern nts, at least 100,000 Lebanese civilians flee their homes and hundreds die.
That was 1978.
Israel sure learned their lesson, didn't they?
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundYou overlook the fact that when Israel started bombing Lebanon they hadn't had any soldiers killed.
I would be interested in your views on how you would've done things differently in the Lebanon-Israel conflict ?
If we take it that Israels response so far has been disproportionate, how would you determine when it would've been correct to attack the Lebanon? How many Israelis should've died before A response would be deemed correct?
They had had 2 soldiers kidnapped.
In response to this they killed about 500 people. These actions have lead to at least 50 Israeli's getting killed. Furthermore they have motivated a new generation of radical muslims to take arms against the west.
So I would argue a proportionate response could have been done in two ways:
Seek a international squeeze on hizbollah through moderate arab states including lebabon.
Send in special forces to recapture their soldiers.
In both cases the answer to your qustion is 0 deaths.
Originally posted by no1marauderWhat about firing missiles into populated areas in Israel, from the Lebanon, and frow Gazza. Are you saying this didn't happen ?
Hezbollah is defending their land; last I checked it was never considered essential for a country defending its land to force all its people to move so that an invader could bomb. Could you please point out in history when this was done? Israel has decided where it wanted to bomb and it has bombed many civilian targets: airports, roads, bridges, villages ...[text shortened]... 't). But a full scale invasion is beyond the plae and a 1000 dead and counting is a war crime.
And i'll ask again, do you think it is right that hesbolla should hide in areas populated by civillians? and do you think that they use civillians as a human shield ?
Originally posted by invigorateYou are very good at working the figures my friend.
You overlook the fact that when Israel started bombing Lebanon they hadn't had any soldiers killed.
They had had 2 soldiers kidnapped.
In response to this they killed about 500 people. These actions have lead to at least 50 Israeli's getting killed. Furthermore they have motivated a new generation of radical muslims to take arms against the west.
...[text shortened]... l forces to recapture their soldiers.
In both cases the answer to your qustion is 0 deaths.
Hesbolla captured 2 soldiers, then Israel killed 500 people ?
How many rockets landed on Israeli soil by the time the 500th person died?
And you forget that Hesbolla fired the first volley of rockets into Israel, not the other way around, so i will ask again. . .
How many Israelis would you have liked to have seen killed before a response would've been justified in your eyes?
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundHuck no i don't think it is right to hide behind civillians. Neither is it right to bomb a country's infrastructure, by air land and sea.
What about firing missiles into populated areas in Israel, from the Lebanon, and frow Gazza. Are you saying this didn't happen ?
And i'll ask again, do you think it is right that hesbolla should hide in areas populated by civillians? and do you think that they use civillians as a human shield ?
But I know which one of these causes more heartache, and death.
It is not the stone throwers in Gaza or the 50 mile rockets from Hisbollah. It is the US backed technology of Israel.
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundI don't think Hezbollah uses civilians as a human shield. I think Israel is indiscriminate in their targeting.
What about firing missiles into populated areas in Israel, from the Lebanon, and frow Gazza. Are you saying this didn't happen ?
And i'll ask again, do you think it is right that hesbolla should hide in areas populated by civillians? and do you think that they use civillians as a human shield ?
Before this operation, not a single Israeli civilian had been killed by a Hezbollah rocket. During this operation, Israel bombed civilian targets first; Hezbollah has adopted a "tit for tat" approach; Nasrallah has offered to stop firing rockets if Israel stops bombing. When Israel stopped most of its bombing for 48 hours, Hezbollah fired no rockets.
Personally, I think "tit for tat" is unjustified. But Israel has killed about 30 times the number of people with shelling and bombing then Hezbollah has with its rockets. Let's get some perspective here.
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundYour facts are dead wrong; Israel bombed and killed dozens of civilians BEFORE Hezbollah fired a single rocket. This information is easily verifiable on the web; please check your facts before making such absurd claims.
You are very good at working the figures my friend.
Hesbolla captured 2 soldiers, then Israel killed 500 people ?
How many rockets landed on Israeli soil by the time the 500th person died?
And you forget that Hesbolla fired the first volley of rockets into Israel, not the other way around, so i will ask again. . .
How many Israelis would you have liked to have seen killed before a response would've been justified in your eyes?
Originally posted by no1marauderIsrael has launched an incursion into southern Lebanon in what they claim is a search for two Israeli soldiers. The soldiers were taken Wednesday following an attack by Hezbollah, a Lebanese militia, that had made an incursion into Israel.
Your facts are dead wrong; Israel bombed and killed dozens of civilians BEFORE Hezbollah fired a single rocket. This information is easily verifiable on the web; please check your facts before making such absurd claims.
Three Israeli soldiers died and eleven were wounded when army transports patrolling at the Israeli-Lebanese border were attacked on Wednesday morning, near the Israeli village of Zar'it. Hezbollah also fired mortars and long-range rockets at the Israeli town of Shlomi and nearby communities. Six Israeli civilians were injured by the artillery fire.
After the attack two soldiers were found to be missing. Israeli troops and tanks then entered southern Lebanon...
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundI was under the impression that Israel initial air strikes were pre hisbollah rockets. The fact that Israel is still getting hit by rockets just goes to show that this conflict will not by sorted by its current methods.
You are very good at working the figures my friend.
Hesbolla captured 2 soldiers, then Israel killed 500 people ?
How many rockets landed on Israeli soil by the time the 500th person died?
And you forget that Hesbolla fired the first volley of rockets into Israel, not the other way around, so i will ask again. . .
How many Israelis would you have liked to have seen killed before a response would've been justified in your eyes?
Israel fears talking to the Arab world.